The Quest for Legitimacy: Comment on Cox Macpherson's 'To Strengthen Consensus, Consult the Stakeholders'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue of Bioethics, Cheryl Cox Macpherson is critical of the failure of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) to engage in broad public and stakeholder consultation in the latest revision of the International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects.1 The critique of the CIOMS process is two-fold. First, by not engaging in broad consultation, CIOMS violated the principle of respect for persons and its own requirement that researchers consult with communities. As a result, ‘CIOMS may lose credibility for holding what appears to be a double standard.’2 Second, CIOMS as an ‘organisation that aims to represent either society in general, or a particular constituency’, has an obligation to seek to build a broad consensus on moral issues through public debate.3 CoxMacpherson concludes that ‘CIOMS and similar organisations must put more emphasis on consulting stakeholders, and on globally promoting ethical guidelines and dialogue.’4 Bioethics ISSN 0269-9702 (print); 1467-8519 (online) Volume 18 Number 3 2004
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.080 | 0.122 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".